If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I have been getting allot of customers this last year that have spoken of this forum, and finally I had one send me a link to this site.

That was me. I knew that a LOT of people from this forum had been buying from you, so I thought why not see if you'd participate in our group...

I'm not sure how I missed your posts earlier, but welcome to the forum!

Last edited by angrysparrow; 12-10-2007 at 22:05.

“I think that when the lies are all told and forgot the truth will be there yet. It dont move about from place to place and it dont change from time to time. You cant corrupt it any more than you can salt salt.” - Cormac McCarthy

We at Strapworks have added a new design to our straps to make it easier for you to order these hammock supports. I call it the Strapworks Simple Sling. I would have called it a Hammock Strap, but I have had several different variations of this strap. I did price it specifically to match the posted pricing in this forum.
Funny thing: while I was filling out the appropriate paperwork to add this to the site, I got three calls from members of this forum.

strapman welcome,
if you wrap the strap around the tree and pass one loop through the other, the webbing cinches tight on the tree, if done this way, the webbing will not be loose enough to slide at all and no abrasion should occur, similarly, when swinging in the hammock, none of the webbing actually touching the tree will move, there is actually so little friction involved that a slight swing will keep going for a long time.

The friction is what keeps the straps from sliding down the tree. Just the action of wrapping the webbing around the tree could pick up slivers. I might be over thinking it a bit though, but I would personally rather err to the safe side.

Originally Posted by warbonnetguy

you should offer lighter weight 1" polyester webbing, www.owfinc.com has a 1" polyester that is really nice, 2000# break strength and almost half the weight of your 3500#. (6.125 g/ft). it's ideal for hammocks.

I would love to add a lighter weight polyester. We might in the future. We have only been carrying the polyester webbing for a little over a year. We are already thinking of some new product lines involving untreated polyester webbing and sublimation printing. For now we are limited to the industrial grade polyester that is designed to hold trucks down to flatbeds.

Originally Posted by warbonnetguy

speaking of ideal, why don't you guys get some light weight spectra webbing made, the weakest I've seen it is around 5000#. if you had it made with a 1500-2000# it would be a lot lighter than even the owf webbing. I've noticed there is hardly any selection of high tech fiber webbing online, it would be a good option to have.

Trust me, I am often suggesting new webbing options. And I would love to add Spectra, Nomex, Kevlar, & Vectran, but there is not a lot of call for it. If I had just one group place an order for a significant quantity then we could probably find a way of adding it to stock. (hint hint) There is also a space issue of adding a new line of webbing. (Not a big issue if you are looking for one color in 3 sizes, but an issue nonetheless

Originally Posted by warbonnetguy

so why do you use the box stitch and not the bar tack like is done on climbing webbing?

thanks for popping in.

Brandon

We can use the Bar Tack if someone requests it. The reason we traditionally use the Box X stitch is because we can put a larger number of individual stitches in the webbing without damaging the webbing. There are three main reasons most climbing companies use the bar tack. One: the machine cost less; two: it takes less space on the webbing in a product that space can be an issue; and three: it is a sturdy stitch.
I have found that most fall protection harnesses use the box X stitch or the Box "Argyle" stitch (which is also used on the really heavy duty straps).
in general the bar tack stitch is about 75% the strength of the box X.
At Strapworks we have the capability of using bar tacks, box X's, Box "Argyles", and even custom stitches. We primarily use the Box X because of the ratio of strength : time.

In general we are easy to work with, and can do most anything that you request within reason.
Thanks for all the great questions, I hope this helps.
-David

"We can use the Bar Tack if someone requests it. The reason we traditionally use the Box X stitch is because we can put a larger number of individual stitches in the webbing without damaging the webbing. There are three main reasons most climbing companies use the bar tack. One: the machine cost less; two: it takes less space on the webbing in a product that space can be an issue; and three: it is a sturdy stitch.
I have found that most fall protection harnesses use the box X stitch or the Box "Argyle" stitch (which is also used on the really heavy duty straps).
in general the bar tack stitch is about 75% the strength of the box X.
At Strapworks we have the capability of using bar tacks, box X's, Box "Argyles", and even custom stitches. We primarily use the Box X because of the ratio of strength : time."

My copy of "On Rope" talks about stitching patterns, and I'm going to try and describe one of the strongest stitches it shows. It's a series of 4 long triangles, with the points running up the webbing probably twice as far as a box stitch extends. I really wish they'd attached a name to it so I could search for an image on Google. Anyone know the name? The Box stitch is supposed to be a third of the strength!

My copy of "On Rope" talks about stitching patterns, and I'm going to try and describe one of the strongest stitches it shows. It's a series of 4 long triangles, with the points running up the webbing probably twice as far as a box stitch extends. I really wish they'd attached a name to it so I could search for an image on Google. Anyone know the name? The Box stitch is supposed to be a third of the strength!

I know the stitch you are referring to. It is a variation on the box X. This is the one I was refering to as a Box Argyle. I coined the term because it reminds me of an argyle pattern in socks and scarves. If it has another name I would love to hear it.

Keep in mind that a stitch rated for 10,000lbs on webbing rated for 5000lbs doesn't increase the strength of the strap. We try to match the stitch to the webbing, which most commonly in our purposes happens to be the Box X.

One more thing to consider is the sheer strength of the stitch. A stiching pattern that is spread out will have better sheer capacity then a stitch that is condensed.

We can program our machines to stitch a bar tack to have the same overall strength as a box X, but it would be a challenge to match the sheer strength.

The box argyle pattern will have the greatest strength and sheer, but it typically will be overkill on most webbing products.

i just received 20' of the 1" polyester webbing and 20' of the 1.5 inch seatbelt polyester from strapworks. the 1.5" seatbelt webbing is noticeably lighter than the 1" webbing, its also softer - I haven't had it long enough to comment on wear, abrasion resistance. I decided to go with lighter weight and made two 10' huggers out of the seatbelt webbing, loops at each end with two descending rings sewed in the loop at one end. I like it, girth hitch the tree, then run the spyderline thru the rings with a garda hitch. 10' hugger covers almost anything I need here in the east.

I bought some of the 1.5 seatbelt polyester also. It is .25 oz a foot compared to the 1" polyester at .41 oz a foot. (Both from Strapworks) It has worked great so far and since it is wider it is better for the trees.

Thanks hangout for the data, didn't know how much lighter it was but it was obvious. Like you say, its better for the trees and better for my pack weight. I think I've got the same set up as you, spyderwirea and garda hitch, i really like it.